Disclaimer: The views expressed in this
article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other OEN
editors or of the organization. ~~R B Shreve

An academic treatise on conspiracy theories has provoked howls of
outrage among those who call themselves the truth movement. The paper
can hardly be considered news, it was first released as a draft in
January of 2008. But when one of its authors, Cass Sunstein, became
part of the Obama administration, the appointment alarmed conspiracists
because his paper advocates "cognitive infiltration of extremist
groups" both foreign and domestic.

Consider for a moment the word infiltration and its
implications in the context of a belief. When you have an open
mind and are seeking to expand your knowledge and understanding, new
information is a desirable thing. The open-minded seeker welcomes
diversity of thought, and simply accepts what is useful and rejects
what is not. By contrast, the true believer regards discordant
information as a threat, heresy, and wants to suppress it -- to keep it
from infiltrating the body of concordant information that
sustains his or her belief.

So when Sunstein was appointed to a job in the Obama administration,
his writing took on sinister implications for those who must defend
their conspiracy beliefs from infiltration. Could that appointment be
part of a grand conspiracy to suppress and discredit the truth
movement? A conspiracy against conspiracies?

In a word, yes -- and it is high time.

- Advertisement -

A fundamental principle of our society is the right of the people to
democratically decide matters that affect civic affairs. For the
process to work, people need to make good judgments. Americans
have long respected the right and responsibility of everyone to be
educated and thus equipped to think and discern what is best for
themselves and their nation -- to be informed citizens. The ability to
reason and think are essential to self-governance.

Something goes awry in that process when a group isolates itself
cognitively -- when the group demeans and excludes those who disagree.
We see it within our political parties, our religions, our academic
circles, and in just about every voluntary group. Denial and
self-validation are the rule, not the exception. We humans are not
strictly rational creatures, despite our avowed respect for reason. We
have structures of knowing that are part intuitive, part emotional, and
part logical.

Ideas, even wrong ideas, have power. And where there is power,
there are those who will exploit it. The politics of fear has been
employed widely in campaigns over the past two decades. Radio and TV
personalities like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh have discovered that
they can exploit doubt and fear to capture audience and make millions.
Though the allegations they make and the questions they raise are often
quickly put to rest when the facts are known, it is alarming how the
misinformation and doubts persist long after the initial shock has
dissipated. Leaders of groups that believe in a conspiracy gain
prestige, power and access to money by feeding the fear and stoking the
underlying belief.

- Advertisement -

Our tendency to circle the wagons in the presence of doubts and fears
adds up to a fortress mentality that tends toward extremes and becomes
ever more defensive and paranoid. From the outside the behavior looks
like a cult. From the inside, the group seems like a shelter protecting
members from succumbing to dangerously seductive lies. The doubt and
fear makes objectivity impossible.

Contributors to OEN include a number of prolific writers who advocate
for conspiracy theories of all sorts including: 9-11 false flag theory,
UFO's are real, JFK was killed by the CIA, Obama isn't a native US citizen,
and many many more. On the one hand editors wish to be open and not
pre-judge these writers, but at the same time, we want to be
discriminating and publish work that is intellectually honest and is
not misleading or propaganda veiled as news and opinion. We want OEN to
be credible.

How does one separate faulty reasoning and sophist thinking from good
reporting? We look at the quality of the sources. We look at the
credentials of the writer. We look for case-building posing as inquiry.
We look for fear-mongering. We look for personal (ad hominem) attacks.
We look for unsupported negative characterizations (slurs).

Applying these sensibilities, let's examine the Sunstein paper about
conspiracy theories. Sunstein is a respected academic, a lawyer, a
contributing editor to the New Republic, and has published extensive
research and a book on the topic of extreme beliefs and conspiracy
theories. His reasoning and facts have endured rigorous peer review. He
is indisputably an expert. His paper cites extensive related
research supporting his considered opinion. It was accepted and
published by both Harvard University Law School and by the University
of Chicago Law School. The language and style of the paper are logical
and lack the hallmarks of a rant or of an an attempt to build a false case --
it is objective analysis at a high level of scholarship.

No need to belabor the issue of merit further. However, if you remain
unclear about discerning credibility in articles that present a
conclusion, I include a series of links below. The first is to
Sunstein's paper. The second to a humorous review of it and the
remaining ones are to articles about conspiracies that OEN has
published. Check them out. Read the comment threads. When you do, you
will find you can easily decide what and who is to be believed.

The remaining links reveal a range of conspiracy thinking, either in the articles or the comments following the articles. There are many more, just search OEN for "conspiracy."

- Advertisement -

What you choose to believe ... well that is purely your call,
no one is pronouncing a verdict on these matters to declare what is
immutable truth. As for me, I'm very happy to know that Sunstein and
those like him are in the administration. And I wish him the best of
luck "infiltrating" his detractors -- he'll need every bit of luck he
can muster.

Richmond Shreve is a retired business executive whose careers began in electronics (USN) and broadcasting in the 1960s. Over the years he has maintained a hobby interest in amateur radio, and the audio-visual arts while working in sales and (more...)